Larimer v. American Family Mut. Ins., 926 N.W.2d 472

Nehemiah Larimer (age 18) died after colliding with a car while riding his 49cc moped; the at-fault driver’s insurer paid its $100,000 limits.
Nehemiah was an insured under his parents’ American Family Car and Umbrella policies; the moped was not listed as an insured vehicle.
The Car policy included an Underinsured Motorists Coverage Endorsement; the Umbrella provided excess UM/UIM "no broader than the underlying insurance."
American Family denied underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits relying on an "owned but not insured" exclusion that bars UIM when injury occurs "while occupying ... a motor vehicle that is not insured under this policy, if it is owned by you or any resident of your household."
Circuit court granted summary judgment to Larimer, finding the policy ambiguous about whether an unlicensed moped qualified as a covered "motor vehicle;" American Family appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Larimer)	Defendant's Argument (American Family)	Held
Whether the Endorsement’s definition of “motor vehicle” and the owned-but-not-insured exclusion are ambiguous	Definitions across the policy should be read together; the endorsement is ambiguous as to whether an unlicensed moped is a "motor vehicle," so exclusion should not apply	Endorsement’s plain definition of "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, so the exclusion clearly bars coverage	Ambiguous — court construed ambiguity against insurer and held exclusion did not apply to Nehemiah’s unlicensed moped
Whether the owned-but-not-insured exclusion is void as against public policy (notice of review)	Argues exclusion defeats SDCL 58-11-9.5’s purpose to protect insureds injured by underinsured drivers	Insurer defends the exclusion as a permissible, clear contractual limitation	Court did not decide: because it found the policy ambiguous and resolved in insured’s favor, it declined to reach the public policy question (concurring opinion would find the exclusion void)

Harvieux v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 915 N.W.2d 697 (S.D. 2018) (summary-judgment review standard and de novo review of insurance issues)
Oxton v. Rudland, 897 N.W.2d 356 (S.D. 2017) (no deference on appellate review of summary judgment)
Ass Kickin Ranch, LLC v. N. Star Mut. Ins. Co., 822 N.W.2d 724 (S.D. 2012) (ambiguities in insurance contracts construed for the insured; insurer bears burden to prove exclusions apply)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Harbert, 741 N.W.2d 228 (S.D. 2007) (insurer meets burden when claim clearly falls outside coverage)
Cornelius v. Nat’l Cas. Co., 813 N.W.2d 167 (S.D. 2012) (genuine uncertainty in meaning creates ambiguity resolved for insured)
Lowery Constr. & Concrete, LLC v. Owners Ins. Co., 901 N.W.2d 481 (S.D. 2017) (entire policy must be examined when interpreting terms)
Phen v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 672 N.W.2d 52 (S.D. 2003) (policy exclusions must be consistent with public policy and statutes)
De Smet Ins. Co. v. Pourier, 802 N.W.2d 447 (S.D. 2011) (majority upheld an owned-but-not-insured exclusion on that case’s facts; noted courts must examine such exclusions in context)
Wheeler v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 824 N.W.2d 102 (S.D. 2012) (invalidated an owned-but-not-insured exclusion as applied to uninsured motorist coverage)